Spears are better than swords: scientific proof

Share this video on

What's Hot

What's New

Top Grossing

Top of the Chart

Recommend

fsmoura : of course the spear is better . . . it has more penetration

Mr. Chiweeni : Another plus, my wooden spear gets through airport scanners everytime.

Duminic The Dumb : Right. Good information. Now then, off on the crusades

stimpsonjcat67 : Lack of proper spears in "The Walking Dead" was the main reason I stopped watching it. Well, that and the wife getting sick of me shouting "A spear would have helped!" at the screen for the 2 seasons we watched it.

flipdart : Cost of a spear - one wooden shaft, one six inch pig iron spearhead - which is optional. Cost of a sword - three feet or so of the best available steel. You can use other metals but they tend to be heavy, brittle and don't keep their edge. You could equip ten spearmen for every swordsman, with no more training needed than "Stand in line, keep your spears up, shield forward!" There are good reasons massed spear formations were THE basic units of armies for three or four thousand years.

The Modern Hermeticist : but muh only 1d6 damage

Christopher Peery : This looks so fun. I wanna join

ardaorhan : I think spears are overlooked because they're simply not as cool as swords. They don't require a master craftsman to make and don't require much skill to use half way effectively. They also look boring compared to swords.

NoStressMike : I did hand to hand close quarters combat in the Vietnam war, as a U.S. Marine. I held my ground and they would attack in human waves by running at or close to me trying to bayonet me or swing something (rifle, machete, or entrenching tool). Seldom would we go one on one because you have a better chance of dying (as you dimastrated). By running by, they would swing or lunge at me at the flank and move on to the next one and may be fight another day. Wouldn't that be a smarter and more realistic way of using hand held ancient weapons? Mike

Rohit Behere : 2:42 why is it always the groin???- dying warrior's last words XD

fsmoura : Better than swords, ok, but _NOT_ katanas . . . Katanas are so superior it's borderline magical. Scientists are still trying to understand why.

ANDREW STOUT : I don't think your swordsmen know how to use their sword. Their biggest problem seems to be closing range. The Romans had a plenty easy enough time dealing with spearmen, and they had a shorter sword than what you're using, while using a shield properly . If you want a historical matchup, look at Murmillos vs Renenarii : classic Gladiator match of armored swordsmen with buckler vs Spearman with Net. It wasn't considered an uneven match.

vonbrigð i : Easy, Long boi beats slicey boy

Venomine : In unarmored combat, sure. But spears are difficult to be precise with. In armored combat, where you either need to pierce through armor or get your weapon into weak spots between plates, the sword will win. Also, real swords can cut the tips off of spears. There are MANY advantages that a sword would have in real combat that aren't being taken into account here.

pogimax : You'd think spears being the go-to weapon for ancient warfare would be patently obvious, since the point (some pun intended) of sharp weapons was to get your weapon into your opponent while keeping yourself from the other's weapon. In that regard, the spear's longer reach affords one better survivability than swords. Spears are also cheaper to make (at worst, you can just use a very long piece of wood with a pointy end--yes, it's a pike, but similar idea). Finally, utilizing spears doesn't have as steep of a learning curve compared to swords.

Tadicuslegion78 : Medieval Sergeant: Do you know how to use that thing? Lindy: Yeah, pointy end goes into the other man

Apple Lysol : Sword are like pistols speers are like rifles

Rockyblack smith : On the Zweihänder; If they used the techniques of the Montante (the spanish version of the Zweihänder) they mostly wouldn't have learned how to fight other greatswords, the fighting manuals on this explicitly treat this as the exeption. However these manuals mainly concern themselves with fights against multiple weapons of shorter reach like swords, since a common use of the Montante was as the weapon of a bodyguard. And in this context, the wide sweeping movements make sense, since you want to keep your opponents at a distance. The exact OPPOSITE of what you'd want to do with a spearman.

Static Raizore : We all know the Bo Staff is the way to go

Christopher Peery : Thats not a shield, thats a plate 3:15

Mikosch2 : You what is funny? When you scroll through the news and find a headline "Stabbing: Four injured at university" and right afterward you get an alert for a new video "Spears are better than swords. Scientific proof."

Training Grounds : You have to hold the spear at it's center of balance if you are wielding it one handed. You lose distance but gain damage and the shield is for the distance lost. Also there is no reason why you cannot slash with a spear especially if you are dealing with low armored combatants. The major way to defeat the spear in close combat is to wait for them to thrust and to grab the spear by the neck with your other hand. You can do this without any weapons at all.

Peter Philipson : Good video, but this kind of videos... their topic doesent makes much sense. Compare a sword to a spear, axe to a sword, european sword vs katana, sword and shield or axe and shield and maces but why?? I could go on the "matchups", but I dont get why people dont understand on the basis every weapon specialized to a certain task. One weapon better to smash your skull, the other cuts you in half, the other stabs you, another punctures you whole body armor and making it useless and so on. Comparing them is pointless like a dull sword because there is no universally "best" weapon in their own era. I noticed there is a shorter version of this video. Well, I just copied my comment from the long version of this video.

Nikola Poiukov : This has been ovbious for as long as the world existed

Jack Anderson : Stone Age > Medieval Age. -Where is the Logic behind that!-

Brennen Yu : This is why the Roman Centurions with their shield formation and spears were almost unstoppable.

NoOneGetzOutAlive : in regards to one-on-one combat this might be considered scientific if any one of your combatants had an ounce of skill with a sword or spear. It's like a bunch of dorky larpers.

KANEISNINJA : The spearmen also never changed to a Jo staff stance when the swordsman got close. Which is also a superior fighting style compared to a sword

Branden Seeger : Just throwing this out there. OF COURSE CLOSING DISTANCE WITH AN ENEMY SPEAR IS DIFFICULT WITHOUT A SHIELD or BUCKLER. duh! Swords are a status of nobility, but it's ignorant to say one's better than the other. The reason they were "status symbols" at all is because they were expensive to craft, just like plate armor. Spears, Axes, and etc. use much less metal than a sword does.

Daniel Federico : I sort of no longer care what results you got. That looks like immense fun.

Roman T : this test is not realistic...use a bigger shield and the swordsman can easily get into closer area...and a spear with metal end is much heavier and less agile: and last not least: it's not enough to hit your enemy and collect points, you have to wound him once you hit...

daniel vb : Spear guy hits places that would be covered by armor and you still count as a win. In reality the swordsman would not have been hurt and would try to bash and stun his opponent with the sword before trying to stab trought an opening in the armor. Some swordsman would even hold the sword by the blade with thick leather gloves and hit the opponent with the guard like a hammer.

Jack Flannigan : I have a question regarding the type of shields at 7:30. Were they held by only one handle or there was also a brace for your elbow? thank you in advance

bhargavmr1 : Shield + short spear would work well. Like the Zulus.

Derpimus Maximus : Alternative tests(not shown) Bren gun 30, spears 0.

Marc Rover : I'm not a historian, nor a weapons expert. BUT, I think spears would have a very HARD-TIME piercing REAL plate-armor. Hence, when armor became popular and accessible to people, I imagine the shift from spear to sword became necessary. I mean, even if the sword can't cut thru the armor, the sheer WEIGHT of the sword is going to do damage: break bones, knock-out, etc etc...

N'zoth The Corruptor : Armor changes everything in those combats

Tom Smith : Wouldn’t a sword cut through the spear though...?

WoodWidgeWumbo : Did you switch up the spear user every so often? because after every bout the one wielding the spear becomes more aquatinted to using a spear while I assume the people using swords were being given new weapons and shields after each test so they didn’t have time to get used to their weapon.

Martin Mörsch : I remember now, that when we played with Wooden swords as kids, sometimes someone would pick up a much, much longer stick, and you just felt helpless against it... I guess a Spear really also had a psychological effect on its enemies.... would you want to charge against these many long, and very pointy spears?

Jaden M. : Sure, but swords look cooler.

Bleeb : I choose gun

Alex Soetekouw Productions : Throw the buckler like a frisbee to thro him off.

commonberus1 : In real life would not spears run the risk of having their shaft cut by the sword?

Landon Brackez : *YOO HOO MOTHERF**#CKER*

Valkaneer : Shield and spear, they are holding the spear way too far back. You have to choke up on it. There is a reason the Spartans used this combination.

Daniel Hounshell : the guys with the zweihander were absolutely clueless, they were flailing about like morons, hitting the ground, and not even trying to defend themselves. I don't really think that very much can really be drawn from that. Not to mention that if armor is a factor, a lot of this goes quite differently. Also a lot of the sword hits were done with flats, or without enough power to do anything. The second one goes for a couple of the spear strikes as well, so some of these wouldn't have actually ended a fight.

Kellen Brinton : Also the spear has the advantage that all you need to have is the metal head, and a long shaft of wood which is easy to get if you have a lot of trees, while a sword requires the entire blade, which is probably more metal

StygianEmperor : don’t forget how neglected they are in videogames

PabloC4 : 4:50 Did not work because it was not ifused with chaos.